The "Fairness Doctrine" Drumbeat Heating Up!

[CPA]

Originally posted by: eskimospy

Originally posted by: JD50

Originally posted by: eskimospy
Hey look its the weekly fairness doctrine thread! Call me when Obama supports it, or when a bill containing it passes either house of Congress. I'll be waiting.

Better yet, I'll finish off the thread for you guys:

Q: LIBRULZ WANT THE FAIRNESS DOCTREIN, FREE SPEECH UNLESS THEY DISAGREE WITH IT AMIRITE?

A: Just because a few people support it doesn't mean it's going to pass, and Obama doesn't support it.

Q: How do you know he doesn't support it? He said he was going to take public money in the campaign and then he didn't.

A: /facepalm

Maybe you can make up a list of everything the right is allowed to discuss here so the mods can sticky it. I'd hate for you to have to continue sifting through all of these threads that you don't approve of.

Maybe instead of replying to ongoing threads you should make a new thread saying the exact same thing 2-3 times a week. Furthermore, it should be considered breaking news when any one of the five hundred and thirty five members of Congress comes out in support of an idea. Hopefully we will have dozens if not hundreds of these threads in the coming days. When confronted with the fact that you have mentioned no supporting legislation with any remote possibility of passage even through the legislature, much less the executive which has explicitly stated its opposition, this should be ignored and another thread generated. For all these reasons, nobody should make fun of someone for repeatedly doing this.

Oh, and CPA: since this legislation has 'come to life' surely you can point me to the House or Senate resolution where this is under consideration, along with a voting schedule on it, and if you're really nice some sort of proof that it would have anywhere close to enough votes to pass. I'll be waiting.

my bad, it is not legislation yet. The point however is that it is being talked about again. In my mind, this kind of idea should not even have a glimmer of hope in this society. Or maybe it's true, we have moved so far away from our Constitution that this was just the next evolutionary step in the federal government controlling our daily life.

 

[Budmantom]

It's not the "Fairness Doctrine" if they don't call it the "Fairness Doctrine", they might name it the "Freedom of Speech Doctrine"(that sounds good) I'm sure Obama would/could support that and all of his supporters would know he didn't break his word.

 

[spidey07]

Originally posted by: CPA
my bad, it is not legislation yet. The point however is that it is being talked about again. In my mind, this kind of idea should not even have a glimmer of hope in this society. Or maybe it's true, we have moved so far away from our Constitution that this was just the next evolutionary step in the federal government controlling our daily life.

That's the point and why there should be outrage. That anybody even thinks it is a good idea is freaking scary.

That they are a congressman is just so wrong on so many levels.

That it's more than one lawmaker talking about being a good idea? I wish there were a stronger word than outrage - those guys need to be put in public so we can throw rotten fruit at them.

 

[fskimospy]

Originally posted by: CPA

my bad, it is not legislation yet. The point however is that it is being talked about again. In my mind, this kind of idea should not even have a glimmer of hope in this society. Or maybe it's true, we have moved so far away from our Constitution that this was just the next evolutionary step in the federal government controlling our daily life.

And my point is that there are always dumb people in Congress throwing around dumb ideas. On both sides of the aisle there are truly crazy assholes who want to pass horrible legislation all the time. I'm trying to remember what website it is, but somewhere catalogs all the insane House (usually) resolutions that have been proposed over the years. What happens with them? Nothing.

The Fairness Doctrine simply does not have enough support to pass. From what I've seen it's not even anywhere remotely close. If it ever does come close, I'll be right there next to you being outraged as I hugely, massively oppose it as well. The thing is, that it almost certainly won't. This issue is simply being used by the right as an excuse to whip people up into a paranoid frenzy over nothing.

 

[dphantom]

Originally posted by: Lemon law
Their is a problem with the dphantom argument of "Start up a talk radio show espousing your viewpoints. In 20 years, you too could have 20 million listeners and be successful like Rush. I just wish we had more articulate conservatives like Rush both on the air and in Congress. Maybe we would not be in the mess we are in today if that were so."

And that problem is that the very ideas advocated by Limbaugh and his right wing ilk are precisely why we are in the terrible situation we are now.

Without the fairness doctrine, Rush is allowed to spew his wacko ideologies with no debate or empirical testing of reality allowed, because that is the way Limbaugh has set it up. A one man show, for an egotistical windbag while he laughs all the way to the bank.
As a Liberal, its painful to listen to Limbaugh as his logic is non existent, but still, I do not believe in censorship so I have mixed feelings about the fairness doctrine being applied, even for idiots.

As it is, a very large part of the GOP has rejected Limbaugh, and if Limbaugh wants to be king of the lunatic fringe, he has too many rivals and friends to rest easy.

Bolded. It is a PERSONAL opinion. Who cares? So what if he makes 25 mil a year or more. Why do you think you have the right to censor any person's opinion just because you think it is dangerous or wrong or hateful or whatever.

That is the point. You do not. Rush is not out running a political campaign. He is espousing an opinion. Don't like it, turn it off.

But to say, well he and his ideas are "dangerous" and "got us into this mess" so we have to shut him up and use the government to do that - just think for a minute how so very dangerous that is.

Communists do what you advocate. The National Socialists did what you advocate. Dictators do what you advocate.

Free people and those who cherish freedom do not. We will disagree but in this wonderful country, we have safeguards that allow us to say what we want free from retribution or censorship.

The ideas that hold the day are the ones that resonate with the people. And if the people want to listen and like what they hear, then who are you or I to say or dictate otherwise?

 

[MovingTarget]

Originally posted by: eskimospy

Originally posted by: CPA

my bad, it is not legislation yet. The point however is that it is being talked about again. In my mind, this kind of idea should not even have a glimmer of hope in this society. Or maybe it's true, we have moved so far away from our Constitution that this was just the next evolutionary step in the federal government controlling our daily life.

And my point is that there are always dumb people in Congress throwing around dumb ideas. On both sides of the aisle there are truly crazy assholes who want to pass horrible legislation all the time. I'm trying to remember what website it is, but somewhere catalogs all the insane House (usually) resolutions that have been proposed over the years. What happens with them? Nothing.

The Fairness Doctrine simply does not have enough support to pass. From what I've seen it's not even anywhere remotely close. If it ever does come close, I'll be right there next to you being outraged as I hugely, massively oppose it as well. The thing is, that it almost certainly won't. This issue is simply being used by the right as an excuse to whip people up into a paranoid frenzy over nothing.

I may be on the opposing side of the FD debate, but this is one thing we can agree on. The frenzy seems to be working, too. The FD is a political non-starter. It is dead as an armadillo lying on the freeway for a week. However, looking on these boards you'd think that the House had already passed it, a roll-call vote was going to happen any minute now in the Senate, POTUS Obama was standing right next to Harry Reid with his signing pen, with Joe Biden in a skirt with videophone ready to call Rush to tell him to STFU and read aloud some vintage Marx 24/7.

 

[JSt0rm]

Originally posted by: spidey07
That's the point and why there should be outrage. That anybody even thinks it is a good idea is freaking scary.

That they are a congressman is just so wrong on so many levels.

That it's more than one lawmaker talking about being a good idea? I wish there were a stronger word than outrage - those guys need to be put in public so we can throw rotten fruit at them.

Ohh come on now you know there are bat shit crazy republican congress people with alll kinds of inane ideas.

 

[Jaskalas]

Originally posted by: Moonbeam
Muzzling right winged talk radio is like muzzling the Hitler movement or inoculating the public against polio. It feeds a sickness that needs to be destroyed. It preys on the insane making them sicker.

To prevent civil discourse you will create violent discourse, but that's what you want isn't it?

 

[brandonbull]

Originally posted by: dphantom
Then what is stopping you from being that counter voice? No, the crux of your argument is because people are free to choose what they listen to and you disagree with that viewpoint, you want the government to censor the speech you disagree with and that people do not want to listen to.

Start up a talk radio show espousing your viewpoints. In 20 years, you too could have 20 million listeners and be successful like Rush. I just wish we had more articulate conservatives like Rush both on the air and in Congress. Maybe we would not be in the mess we are in today if that were so.

Do not give that DRUG ADDICT/ PRESCRIPTION FORGER any credit. That guy is something I'm not proud of to claim as part of American culture.

Bill Maher is the sterotype for liberals. Slick-haried, self-centered, elites that know less than they think they do. They would love nothing more than everyone else pay for them to afford expensive things.

 

[Craig234]

What dishonest, ideological drivel. Point by point:

Originally posted by: GTaudiophile
Man, the Dems must feel so threatened!

No, liberals feel concern for the public interest, which is best served by the most powerful side having a monopoly on the debate.

Say, the side that wants to call for de-regulating the financial markets with lots of propaganda about how that will free the coroporations to enrich America.

Why are you so determined to fight for the right to monopoly while using public airwaves worth billions given to the corproate media for free?

The last bastion of non-Liberal-controlled media is under fire.

A total lie. The media has a strong corproate bias, which is the same thing as a right-wing bias for a long time.

Show me the last time Noam Chomsky and Amy Goodman and Thom Hartmann and Mike Malloy were on the mainstream talk shows.

This has been hasehed out and you - people who say what you said - have been shown to be wrong every time - and after all that, now we can say liars every time.

Wait a minute, what about NPR? If the FD passes under Obama, I hope the next Republican Prez axes tax payer funds to NPR.

NPR is left of the radical right you like, not left of the reasonable center. They bend over backwars to have absurd right-wing guests just for 'balance'.

You're like a kid who thinks a diet coke is 'health food' because it's not sugar coke.

The fact you want to gut the quality public service provided by public media shows your terrible judgement and hate of fair media.

Of course, if Obama goes along with this, he will completely alienate everyone on the right as well as a lot of moderates I bet. This is nothing short of government censorship.

Oh no, not alienating the idiotic, hateful, ignorant, dishonest cretins. Not that.

They're going to be alienated no matter what he does short of his becoming radical right.

Who cares if they're alienated, when they are so unreasonable and absurd? Let them develop some judgement and reasonable positions and then they can say something..

The forfeti that right now by their irresponsibility.

They can start with stopping the lies about what the fairness doctrine is.

 

[ProfJohn]

Originally posted by: eskimospy

Originally posted by: CPA

my bad, it is not legislation yet. The point however is that it is being talked about again. In my mind, this kind of idea should not even have a glimmer of hope in this society. Or maybe it's true, we have moved so far away from our Constitution that this was just the next evolutionary step in the federal government controlling our daily life.

And my point is that there are always dumb people in Congress throwing around dumb ideas. .

Did you miss Bill Clinton coming out in support of it??

"Well, you either ought to have the Fairness Doctrine or we ought to have more balance on the other side,"

And you wonder why we keep talking about it.

 

[First]

^ Mostly wingnut complaining after 3 years of pummeling losses.

 

[Whoozyerdaddy]

Originally posted by: Evan
^ Mostly wingnut complaining after 3 years of pummeling losses.

Yeah... 'cause right wing radio has hurt the lefties so much they couldn't take control of congress or the presidency!

The fairness doctrine is a direct assault against the free market. It's a perfect example of how liberals think. (Silence the opposition) And they accuse conservatives of being fascist...

A radio show that gets raitings will survive regardless of the message... As is evidenced by the truly talented Air America leftovers who continue to thrive in the ratings wars.

Right wing radio is about as valid an accusation as left wing media.

 

[Craig234]

Originally posted by: Whoozyerdaddy
Yeah... 'cause right wing radio has hurt the lefties so much they couldn't take control of congress or the presidency!

That's a lttle like arguing smoking is harmless because you haven't caught cancer yet.

It's pretty idiotic. The fact that Bush ever got 'elected' is testament to imbalanced media.

The fairness doctrine is a direct assault against the free market.

No, it's not. Your satatement is a direct assault on the truth and non-hyperbolic arguing.

Of course, your 'free market' corporations sure like to get the public airwaves.

It's a perfect example of how liberals think. (Silence the opposition)

You're a liar. The doctrine, as you know, does not prevent one argument from being made.

That's not 'censorhip'. It is rather a prevention of monopoly. And monopoly is what you like, as long as it's yours.

And they accuse conservatives of being fascist...

Yes. Here's a clue for you: liberals calling for 'balance' and 'diversity' in the public interest to prevent monopoly is not fascism; it's the enemy of fascism.

Fascism is when the government *exercises* a monopoly on debate, forcing the corporatocracy to support it, and silencing opposition.

A lot like, say, the corporate domination of our political system and concentrated media ownership that prevents mainstream coverage of 'economic justice', and enabled Iraq.

A radio show that gets raitings will survive regardless of the message... As is evidenced by the truly talented Air America leftovers who continue to thrive in the ratings wars.

They can be censored by the corporate owners, not the market.

Look what happened in 'war fever' after 9/11 - MSNBC cancelled their *top show*, the Phil Donahue show, because even one 'liberal' show was too many for them.

That's even after they used a heavy hand to force Donahue to have at least two pro-war guests for every anti-war guest.

Right wing radio is about as valid an accusation as left wing media.

You're a liar. Talk radio has been dominated by the right, and is only slightly changing so far.

In fact, I was listening to a liberal host today talk about that topic, how for years it was so dominated by the rights, she liked to say more men walked on the moon than there were people who had been liberal talk radio hosts. You people on the right like to try to have it both ways as you argue for monopoly, and as you deceive in trying to avoid the simple principle that the public interest is served by not having only one side of issues aired on *public* airwaves.

 

[Whoozyerdaddy]

Originally posted by: Craig234

Originally posted by: Whoozyerdaddy
Yeah... 'cause right wing radio has hurt the lefties so much they couldn't take control of congress or the presidency!

That's a lttle like arguing smoking is harmless because you haven't caught cancer yet.

It's pretty idiotic. The fact that Bush ever got 'elected' is testament to imbalanced media.

The fairness doctrine is a direct assault against the free market.

No, it's not. Your satatement is a direct assault on the truth and non-hyperbolic arguing.

Of course, your 'free market' corporations sure like to get the public airwaves.

It's a perfect example of how liberals think. (Silence the opposition)

You're a liar. The doctrine, as you know, does not prevent one argument from being made.

That's not 'censorhip'. It is rather a prevention of monopoly. And monopoly is what you like, as long as it's yours.

And they accuse conservatives of being fascist...

Yes. Here's a clue for you: liberals calling for 'balance' and 'diversity' in the public interest to prevent monopoly is not fascism; it's the enemy of fascism.

Fascism is when the government *exercises* a monopoly on debate, forcing the corporatocracy to support it, and silencing opposition.

A lot like, say, the corporate domination of our political system and concentrated media ownership that prevents mainstream coverage of 'economic justice', and enabled Iraq.

A radio show that gets raitings will survive regardless of the message... As is evidenced by the truly talented Air America leftovers who continue to thrive in the ratings wars.

They can be censored by the corporate owners, not the market.

Look what happened in 'war fever' after 9/11 - MSNBC cancelled their *top show*, the Phil Donahue show, because even one 'liberal' show was too many for them.

That's even after they used a heavy hand to force Donahue to have at least two pro-war guests for every anti-war guest.

Right wing radio is about as valid an accusation as left wing media.

You're a liar. Talk radio has been dominated by the right, and is only slightly changing so far.

In fact, I was listening to a liberal host today talk about that topic, how for years it was so dominated by the rights, she liked to say more men walked on the moon than there were people who had been liberal talk radio hosts. You people on the right like to try to have it both ways as you argue for monopoly, and as you deceive in trying to avoid the simple principle that the public interest is served by not having only one side of issues aired on *public* airwaves.

LMFAO... :laugh:

Quoted for posterity.

Will respond tomorrow. You're such a fucking tool.

 

[Thump553]

I'm glad to see the righties have moved on to this from such other important issues, as the flag burning amendment, Schiavo case (remember GWB flying in special to sign emergency legislation?), etc.


You guys are looking for boogiemen under the bed and conceding the real issues facing the US to the Democratic Party. The marginalization of the GOP is self-induced.

 

[Whoozyerdaddy]

Originally posted by: Thump553
I'm glad to see the righties have moved on to this from such other important issues, as the flag burning amendment, Schiavo case (remember GWB flying in special to sign emergency legislation?), etc.


You guys are looking for boogiemen under the bed and conceding the real issues facing the US to the Democratic Party. The marginalization of the GOP is self-induced.

So you agree with forcing content into commercial time? Nice to know.

Did you know that it was conservative radio that pointed out to people that the stimulus package was voted upon despite being unread by the members of congress who voted for it? How irresponsible! Wow...

What about that package do you like? Have the Dems posted the bill for review yet?

 

[fskimospy]

Originally posted by: ProfJohn

Originally posted by: eskimospy

Originally posted by: CPA

my bad, it is not legislation yet. The point however is that it is being talked about again. In my mind, this kind of idea should not even have a glimmer of hope in this society. Or maybe it's true, we have moved so far away from our Constitution that this was just the next evolutionary step in the federal government controlling our daily life.

And my point is that there are always dumb people in Congress throwing around dumb ideas. .

Did you miss Bill Clinton coming out in support of it??

"Well, you either ought to have the Fairness Doctrine or we ought to have more balance on the other side,"

And you wonder why we keep talking about it.

Nope, but since Bill Clinton is in no position to pass any legislation (that has not even been proposed) through either house of Congress nor sign it into law as the president, I fail to see how that has any bearing.

Don't you people see how you're being manipulated? You're being whipped into a froth by people who's business it is to do just that, and you're letting it happen over nothing.

 

[Whoozyerdaddy]

Originally posted by: eskimospy

Originally posted by: ProfJohn

Originally posted by: eskimospy

Originally posted by: CPA

my bad, it is not legislation yet. The point however is that it is being talked about again. In my mind, this kind of idea should not even have a glimmer of hope in this society. Or maybe it's true, we have moved so far away from our Constitution that this was just the next evolutionary step in the federal government controlling our daily life.

And my point is that there are always dumb people in Congress throwing around dumb ideas. .

Did you miss Bill Clinton coming out in support of it??

"Well, you either ought to have the Fairness Doctrine or we ought to have more balance on the other side,"

And you wonder why we keep talking about it.

Nope, but since Bill Clinton is in no position to pass any legislation (that has not even been proposed) through either house of Congress nor sign it into law as the president, I fail to see how that has any bearing.

Don't you people see how you're being manipulated? You're being whipped into a froth by people who's business it is to do just that, and you're letting it happen over nothing.

Having an alternate opinion is nothing? Nice to know. Thanks. :laugh:

 

[fskimospy]

Originally posted by: Whoozyerdaddy

Originally posted by: eskimospy

Nope, but since Bill Clinton is in no position to pass any legislation (that has not even been proposed) through either house of Congress nor sign it into law as the president, I fail to see how that has any bearing.

Don't you people see how you're being manipulated? You're being whipped into a froth by people who's business it is to do just that, and you're letting it happen over nothing.

Having an alternate opinion is nothing? Nice to know. Thanks. :laugh:

Huh? Are you drunk? If not, you need to re-read my post because what you're saying seems to bear little to no relation to what I wrote.

Let me say it more clearly. You are being manipulated by people who are making you fear legislation that is extremely unlikely to even be seriously considered, much less pass through Congress, much much less be signed into law by the President.

 

[boomerang]

Oh, to be a liberal in the U.S.

So insecure in your position, even after winning the White House that you have to come up with legislation to ensure that your position is heard.

Those mean, mean righties are spewing their hateful talk again and, and, and SOMEONE IS LISTENING!

I know that you learned everything you needed to know in kindergarten, but it's time to move up to the first grade. Take it slow, we don't want you to get overwhelmed.

If anyone is still reading, in regards to NPR, you'd do well to research how they're funded. It's obvious to me at least that you're going to be surprised.

 

[shrumpage]

Why is everyone talking about how this is going to affect talk radio? Last time a check a lot more people watch TV then listen to AM. I would hate to see shows like SNL tone down its political edge due to worries of balancing.

or west wing...

or boston legal...

 

[Wheezer]

Originally posted by: Moonbeam
Muzzling right winged talk radio is like muzzling the Hitler movement or inoculating the public against polio. It feeds a sickness that needs to be destroyed. It preys on the insane making them sicker.

way to go moon, keep that left wing-nut stereotype alive and well.

 

[Red Dawn]

Originally posted by: eskimospy

Originally posted by: Whoozyerdaddy

Originally posted by: eskimospy

Nope, but since Bill Clinton is in no position to pass any legislation (that has not even been proposed) through either house of Congress nor sign it into law as the president, I fail to see how that has any bearing.

Don't you people see how you're being manipulated? You're being whipped into a froth by people who's business it is to do just that, and you're letting it happen over nothing.

Having an alternate opinion is nothing? Nice to know. Thanks. :laugh:

Huh? Are you drunk? If not, you need to re-read my post because what you're saying seems to bear little to no relation to what I wrote.

Let me say it more clearly. You are being manipulated by people who are making you fear legislation that is extremely unlikely to even be seriously considered, much less pass through Congress, much much less be signed into law by the President.

They know that, it's just an opportunity for them to express their faux rage and true bitterness.

 

[BigJelly]

Originally posted by: shrumpage
Why is everyone talking about how this is going to affect talk radio? Last time a check a lot more people watch TV then listen to AM. I would hate to see shows like SNL tone down its political edge due to worries of balancing.

or west wing...

or boston legal...

The fairness doctrine doesn't apply to true fairness; otherwise the networks, newspapers, and rest of the mainstream media would be shitting their pants about the fairness doctrine

This is a prime example of liberal fascism: complete disregard to public opinion, true fairness, and their hate of the first amendment.

The democrat's view of tolerance is: we are completely tolerant of any thing you say as long as you agree with us 100% of the time, if not then shut-up or we will shut you up.